Sparing Women the Demands of the Priesthood

[_The Nehor]

You were engaged twice? And yet still no marriage? Wow. You're even more of a loser and a dweeb that I thought.

Your informant network is a little slow Uncle Creepy. I've mentioned this several times. I guess your morbid fascination with my masturbation habits distracted you.

GET HELP!!!!!!!

[_badseed]

You were engaged twice? And yet still no marriage? Wow. You're even more of a loser and a dweeb that I thought.

Ouch.

[_beastie]

In a general sense they're equal. I would hypothesize that Priesthood leaders are way ahead of the curve. Hence why I never want to be Bishop.

I'm sure that there are certain priesthood callings, such as bishop, that are more demanding than the equivalent female calling. However, given how few in number these callings are, it does appear that the main differentiation between having the priesthood and not having the priesthood is not in callings or church service, but in being able to perform sacred ordinances in the name of JC.

Most of the time, when believers explain why women cannot have the priesthood, it's to "protect" their roles as mothers in some way - a direct insinuation that priesthood work would take them away from home too much (leaving open the question as to why it's ok to remove fathers from the home that much). But, in reality, that can't be the answer, because the work involved is already roughly equivalent. So it comes down to performing sacred ordinances.

[_The Nehor]

I'm sure that there are certain priesthood callings, such as bishop, that are more demanding than the equivalent female calling. However, given how few in number these callings are, it does appear that the main differentiation between having the priesthood and not having the priesthood is not in callings or church service, but in being able to perform sacred ordinances in the name of JC.

Most of the time, when believers explain why women cannot have the priesthood, it's to "protect" their roles as mothers in some way - a direct insinuation that priesthood work would take them away from home too much (leaving open the question as to why it's ok to remove fathers from the home that much). But, in reality, that can't be the answer, because the work involved is already roughly equivalent. So it comes down to performing sacred ordinances.

There was a fantastic talk given by one of the Apostles on the dangers of declaring reasons for the commandments and laws of God. What random LDS men say to rationalize it is irrelevant. Roughly as irrelevant as your attempts to rationalize why it's that way blaming it on mortals. At least there is symmetry.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe some day society will grow up. Hey, a person can dream, right?

...
Even assuming that it's only up to those 15 men, I very much doubt that they're afraid of women getting power. As I recall, Utah was quite happy to let women vote.

Sir,

As you may know granting women the right to vote had less to do with equality, and more to do with exercising political will in the Territories. Utah, after all, has not ratified the equal rights amendment.

That being said, I find it curious you would invoke racism when describing sexism, clearly acknowledging the injustice inherent in both 'isms, as it were, and yet you don't condemn the active sexism being practiced within the Mormon church? To take your analogy a bit further, if your Mormon apostles this very day denied African-Americans access to the priesthood would you not have second thoughts about the nature of your church? It is a mysterious thing to witness someone holding contradictory thoughts on a matter and express it without giving it a good once over prior to posting.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_asbestosman]

As you may know granting women the right to vote had less to do with equality, and more to do with exercising political will in the Territories. Utah, after all, has not ratified the equal rights amendment.

I'm not a historian or political analyst, so I won't have a fruitful discussion there. Suffice it to say that I think that legal issues are sufficiently complex that one can vote against one bill and vote for a similar bill. I also prefer to have the government as uninvolved as possible. The question on ERA for me then would be whether the law would add sufficient new power to address the current issues (like salary) and would do so without adding extra baggage (like denying male firefighters promotions because not enough females would qualify). These are complex issues and I won't pretend for a moment that one side is obviously more correct than the other.

It is a mysterious thing to witness someone holding contradictory thoughts on a matter and express it without giving it a good once over prior to posting.

I did bring up the apparent sexism of Jesus in choosing his 12 apostles. I know my answer isn't PC, and frankly I don't care. Society believes reverse-isms are okay and will make up for millenia of injustice. Or something. I don't think it's sexist that Curves only wants women as clients (even if they may allow men, I don't know). I don't particularly mind the existence of all-women organizations like the Socitey of Women Engineers. Nor do I mind organizations that exist specifically to offer aid to women (not men). I appreciate all these things. Private orgainzations (including religions) are quite a different thing from public or governmental entities, and having them discriminate doesn't necessarily strike me as wrong, even if I wouldn't mind or maybe would be excited were they to be more inclusive.

I also think gender equality would have a negative impact on the effectiveness on some organizations (although I can't think of any negativity for the church, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be any). Because of the nature of men and women, women often feel more comfortable and perhaps even perform better at mathematics when they are taught without male peers present. Men are not inherently better at math, but women seem to be intimidated by more easily when it comes to male peers knowing the answer (or at least such was the case in a book I read about what happened with some 3rd graders).

[_harmony]

If the church was an all-male society, you'd have some basis for comparison between the church and Curves or the Society of Women Engineers. As it's not, your comparison isn't valid.

[_asbestosman]

If the church was an all-male society, you'd have some basis for comparison between the church and Curves or the Society of Women Engineers. As it's not, your comparison isn't valid.

Hooters? Alright, bad comparison.

Kidding aside, are you telling me that no women-focused organizations employ men? Come on. Do I have to dig to find something? I'm pretty sure my wife's gynocologist is a man.

In any case, it doesn't matter to me. Jesus showed me the sexist way when He called 12 men while on earth.

[_beastie]

There was a fantastic talk given by one of the Apostles on the dangers of declaring reasons for the commandments and laws of God. What random LDS men say to rationalize it is irrelevant. Roughly as irrelevant as your attempts to rationalize why it's that way blaming it on mortals. At least there is symmetry.

I suppose, in the end, it is better to just say "God did it", rather than to try and explain and/or understand what God did. At least that way, if in the future it changes, the next generation won't have to deal with the embarrassing justifications their ancestors offered - like the justification for the priesthood ban. Better off just saying, well, I guess God is racist, or God is sexist, but who are we to question God. God can do whatever the heck he wants to, including sending Mormons to hell, if the EVs are right, eh?

Of course, that never worked for me, even as a believer. God gave us moral reasoning, but then demands that - out of a loyalty test - we not use that same moral reasoning to understand his commandments?????

[_The Nehor]

I suppose, in the end, it is better to just say "God did it", rather than to try and explain and/or understand what God did. At least that way, if in the future it changes, the next generation won't have to deal with the embarrassing justifications their ancestors offered - like the justification for the priesthood ban. Better off just saying, well, I guess God is racist, or God is sexist, but who are we to question God. God can do whatever the heck he wants to, including sending Mormons to hell, if the EVs are right, eh?

Of course, that never worked for me, even as a believer. God gave us moral reasoning, but then demands that - out of a loyalty test - we not use that same moral reasoning to understand his commandments?????

I disagree. I think we should try to understand why God does what he does. I think it's dangerous to make the step from that to, "This is why God did it." I think there are commandments I have figured out reasons for. I'm not arrogant enough to think that from my mortal viewpoint that they are the sole reason or even the main reason. There are probably reasons I couldn't comprehend if God tried to explain them.